Application of Sequential Gaussian Conditional Simulation to Underground Mine Design Under Grade Uncertainty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In mining projects, all uncertainties associated with a project must be considered to determine the feasibility study. Grade uncertainty is one of the major components of technical uncertainty that affects the variability of the project. Geostatistical simulation, as a reliable approach, is the most widely used method to quantify risk analysis to overcome the drawbacks of the estimation methods used for an entire ore body. In this work, all the algorithms developed by numerous researchers for optimization of the underground stope layout are reviewed. After that, a computer program called stope layout optimizer 3D is developed based on a previously proposed heuristic algorithm in order to incorporate the influence of grade variability in the final stope layout. Utilizing the sequential gaussian conditional simulation, 50 simulations and a kriging model are constructed for an underground copper vein deposit situated in the southwest of Iran, and the final stope layout is carried out separately. It can be observed that geostatistical simulation can effectively cope with the weakness of the kriging model. The final results obtained show that the frequency of economic value for all realizations varies between 6.7 M$ and 30.7 M$. This range of variation helps designers to make a better and lower risk decision under different conditions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".